Through his work in Cambridge, Ramanujan achieved the recognition he had sought when he first approached Hardy, and in 1918 he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society (the first Indian to be so honoured).
The British climate, however, took its toll on his health. In 1917 he collapsed with a mysterious stomach complaint and was rushed into hospital, where doctors feared for his life. By late 1918 his health had slightly improved and in 1919 he returned to India. But his health failed again, and he died the following year at the age of 32.
Perhaps, just as we try so hard to instil a love of great writers in successive generations, we should be looking for more stories like that of Ramanujan, to inspire all our young people with a lasting love for the beauty of numbers."
Others see things differently. Derivatives, or 'synthetics','are 'like wearing a seatbelt that allows you to drive faster,' says Rod Dubitsky, director of asset-backed research for Credit Suisse. 'The total dollar amount of losses, all these losses you're seeing, are from synthetics. No question, it changed the game dramatically.'"
bloomberg.com
Several weeks later, he received a letter from Civil Enforcement demanding £125, or £75 if the charge was paid quickly. At first Thomson, a businessman from Sussex, did not even realise that he was being charged for spending too long at McDonald's, as the notice gave only a partial address.
McDonald's told Thomson that the use of "enforcement methods" happened only in "extreme" circumstances. The company added: "At this restaurant we have stipulated that a member of the public may be parked for 45 minutes unless permission is given to stay longer by the duty manager."
McDonald's in effect washed its hands of the charge, saying it had been imposed by Civil Enforcement and the burger giant did not profit from it.
Thomson's charge has risen to £213. He has been threatened with court action and received a letter from a debt collection company. He said that neither he nor any member of his family would eat at the chain again."
guardian
fantastic customer service, hats off to them.
What is it when a woman talks dirty to a man?
$3.99 a minute.
This all started with a column in the New York Times by Ben Stein.. And thus the storm was unleashed. Felix Salmon, who’s hatred of Stein runs so deep he dissects his efforts weekly in his Ben Stein Watch post, got stuck in. As did….everyone else: Paul Krugman, Dean Baker, Naked Capitalism, Information Arbitrage, Dealbreaker - the list of those queueing up to have a pop at Stein’s work, summarised here again by Salmon, goes on and on and on.
The trouble is that while its peers have been forced to write off billions and kiss goodbye to their chief executives, Goldman has sailed sublimely on. Which somehow works in Goldman’s favour. If there are Stein-like shenanigans going on at Goldman, you can bet there are at the other banks. Goldman are just doing it better. And if you accept that Goldman are doing that better, then why so hard to accept they’re just doing the usual trading, risk management, market analysis line of work better as well?
Stein’s allegations aside, we have this week had two alternative explanations for this disparity.
John Plender in the FT argues that the culture of partnership has survived Goldman’s move to a listed company with the accompanying emphasis on mutual surveillance in the common interest. Risk management at Goldman is a collective game - and the status, prestige and pay ascribed to people working in control functions is on a par with those running businesses. Plus Goldman’s board is heavier in banking and risk expertise than some of its rivals, with an executive core. Plender thinks that the bank’s governance played a role in its plain subprime sailing.
The other explanation was offered by the Jeremy Palmer, UBS’s EMEA investment banking chief executive, when put on the spot by the Treasury select committee. Why the committee of MPs asked did they lose money on the back of subprime when Goldman cleaned up?
The response:
Different decisions were taken at different times in different organisations which led to different outcomes.
Which has the advantage of being simple, uncontroversial, and undoubtedly true."
alphaville
Posts
All Comments
